Biden WAS a Game Changer

in

I was slammed by some members here for suggesting that the Biden pick and McCain's approach to campaigning against him would potentially put Huck back on the table as a veep pick.

I never said that he would just get the pick, but that he would probably get a second look.

It appears others now agree with me.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmNkNzdjYjhkMjY3NjdkZTdlYTYyMmY0NjJmMWVjOTQ=

Huckabee as VP Rich Lowry

There's no indication that Huckabee is being considered, so consider this idle speculation like the Hillary chatter prior to Obama's pick. But wouldn't Huckabee make a lot of sense given the things we've learned the last two weeks? 1) McCain might have a "wealth problem," and certainly Democrats are going to try to hit his wealth for all its worth in their play for working-class voters; Huckabee doesn't have a problem on this front, and has lots of working-class cred. 2) The pro-choice trial balloon hasn't been well received, and it's clear that a pro-choice nominee would create a major disruption; Huckabee is pro-life. 3) Obama picked Biden who is going to a vivid presence (for better or worse) on the stump and could be formidable in debate; Huckabee is a great campaigner and might be just the guy to puncture Biden in a debate. 4) (This is a less important point.) The McCain folks have made a huge deal about differences between Obama and Biden during the primaries; McCain and Huckabee didn't have much in the way of differences and went out of their way to praise each other. The other upsides are the press likes Huckabee (for now), he's a different kind of Republican, and his selection would be such a shock, it might even be considered bold. The downsides are—as I've noted many times before—he doesn't have much in the way of national security credentials and has a big seriousness gap, obviously not trifling matters. But if McCain can't do Lieberman, and isn't thrilled by Pawlenty or Romney, Huckabee might be worth a last-minute second look.

The New York Times thought it was a valid enough question to share Lowry's thoughts with their readership.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/a-look-at-huck/?scp=1&sq=A%20LOOK%20AT%20HUCK&st=cse

 

Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic Blog was also interested enough in the discussion to publish one of his reader submissions that made the case for Huckabee.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccains-veep-di.html

McCain's Veep Dilemma
26 Aug 2008 09:44 am

A reader writes:

I agree with everything your reader said on Romney but ... Biden would CHEW Pawlenty up, vomit him, make mincemeat of him and rechew him up. Which is why people are right when they say McCain is boxed in with his VP pick.

For whatever flaws Obama's choices had, none of the choices of McCain make sense. Lieberman's downsides are obvious. Meg Whitman would be smart politics but completely deprive him of the whole "inexperience" thing that is clearly at the core of his "official message" against Obama. Romney is a catastrophe. Pawlenty is a pathetic lightweight. Interestingly, Huckabee does seem like someone who makes sense (in a way that kind of crazy makes sense for a Republican) and sure enough, Ambinder says he is the one Obama people fears. But we know he is - like a certain lady - saving himself for 2012 and is not being vetted - or is he?

McCain-Huckabee? Is Pawlenty that reminiscent of Quayle?

Musing about Huckabee's prospects as a veep pick at this stage of the game should not be news, because in my opinion he should always have been a part of the discussion. The same sense of disrespect  and frustration that Hillary's people feel with Barack, is resonating in our camp regarding how dismissive of Huckabee the right has been.

Even before the Biden pick, I think he should have been considered as a viable option, or at least been kept in the mix. With the Biden pick, and the chosen method of campaigning against him, Mccain has painted himself into a corner. He now needs a veep with blue collar appeal, one he does not have a torrid primary history with, one who won a significant number of votes and thus is worthy of being on the ticket, and who also has the debating skills and knowlege base to take on Biden.

Pawlenty may have been acceptable against a Kaine or Byah, but against Biden the Bombastic  Bully, McCain needs not Huckabee Lite, but the original to seal the deal.

I may be wrong, but I don't know where else he goes with this.

2.5
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Comments

Huckabee is not a smart pick

Huck's not the sharpest and best pick of the litter, nor the most popular. To pick him is to pick a not-the-best choice. That's the #1 reason he should not be picked. Sorry, but lets be blunt. He's not got the 'ready to be President' cachet, brings no state to the table, nails down no particular group of supporters except a few Huck fans. YAWN.

We need a smart VP so people go - 'yeah this is a top-grade ticket'. Get someone smarter than Biden in the debate and it will be game over. Names? Cantor or Romney.

Huckabee *IS* the Biden pick. A primary also-ran who is not the #2 is an obvious gaffe in and of itself. Either pick the #2 candidate or pick outside the field. It unhinges the fiscal cons, just like the Biden pick unhinged the hillary supporters.

 

 

 

 

 

Umm.. Huck WAS the number 2.

He doesn't nail down a state, he nails down the entire south and could really help in the 'guns and religion' rural rustbelt.

I'm stunned at the implication that Mike isn't smart. How could a 'not smart' person successfully run a state for two terms?

You may not like him, but millions of fair tax, evangelical ,and crossover Reagan democrats do.

He may not be your personal favorite pick, but he IS the best pick given the particular confluence of events.

I will cede you that he doen't have the 'presidential' look or name. (He suffers from a certain natural bias against what folks may percieve as 'hick') But I think he has the perfect demeanor for the primarily social, face of the nation to the world, role that veeps have traditionally played.

He has proven he can govern at the state level, I don't see why he should be deprived of the opportunity to get some Washington polish, and settle once and for all if he has what it takes to ever be number 1.

Its a sad state of affairs if an 'ordinary' American can never aspire to be president of this nation. Huck is everyman's dream. If he could do it, I could.

It's not fair that you have to be born into a governing dynasty or have millions to have a real sho at the presidencyt. That is part of Mike's appeal. He truly has gotten to where he is today entirely on his own.

Romney was #2

in terms of total primary votes AFAIK. Huck only got more delegates because he stuck around longer even after he was no longer a viable candidate.

.. Romney had a graceful (yet stunning) CPAC exit that predicted *exactly* the danger the Dems fell in of an extended primary that drains the party  and withdrew on behalf of giving the then presumtive nominee a clearer path to november victory, and Huck stuck around long enough for his last interviews to be "why are you still running when you cant win?" Q&As Another example of 'smart' vs "slow".

He has proven he can govern at the state level, I don't see why he should be deprived of the opportunity to get some Washington polish,

Huckabee could have afforded himself the opportunity to serve in DC by beating Pryor for the Arkansas US Senate seat.  He wont be VP.

Its a sad state of affairs if an 'ordinary' American can never aspire to be president of this nation. Huck is everyman's dream. If he could do it, I could.

This is a very mockable statement. A plea to let mediocrities have a shot? People from ordinary backgrounds, yes, but people who are not the best we can pick? No.

It's not fair that you have to be born into a governing dynasty or have millions to have a real sho at the presidencyt.

Maybe you are in the wrong party. This reeks of class-warfarism. Everyone has a 'shot' including Huckabee. The guy with the most money (Romney) lost. The Democrats have picked a man who is simply unqualified to be President, but has humble origins. Lots of lousy politicians with horrible policies have ridden into office on the backs of populist bashing of the rich. ... And they turned out to be utter ordinary, mediocrities who made the country worse.

You'd be better off laying off the populist antipathy to those who have money and instead ask - WHO IS THE BEST TO LEAD?

 

I am a very cold thinker on this stuff

and my reasons for not favoring Huck are simple. He doesn't get us net votes where we need them the most.  It's not a question of "who finished second" in the primaries. It's a question of not finishing second in November.

He doesn't nail down a state, he nails down the entire south.

The South is already nailed down for McCain. Obama pulled his ads in GA and NC.

The election is won or lost in OH. MI and PA.  The target demographic here are blue collar Catholics, not evangelicals.  I've seen little objective evidence that they are moved to our side by Huck. Indeed,  many of these voters may think the GOP is too southern and protestant already, and desire evidence of change from that template.

Don't underestimate Mike's blue collar appeal

The election is won or lost in OH. MI and PA.  The target demographic here are blue collar Catholics, not evangelicals

I think Mike could help a lot in rural OH and Penn. He actually won many of those rural counties, while John and Mitt battled for the urban votes.

There are still some danger areas in red states for McCain. Iowa is leaning Obama, Mike could help there, and McCain could still have trouble in the southern states with a high black population if the evangelical base is not fully energized. 

On the catholics issue, I think the Biden pick hurts rather than helps. Emphasizing an 'unorthodox' pro-choice catholic's role on the ticket draws attention to the life issue at an archbishop level, which highlights BO's TERRIBLE record, and closes the door on that voting bloc.

McCain needs his evangelical work horses to get out there and work like they did for Bush. Mike on the ticket would ensure that. 

Huck finished third in Macomb County

Being sorta a Rust Belt catholic  (suburban CT far from NYC) myself, I'm not getting it.  Not that Romney's any great shakes with this targeted group, but he will probably do more good in the yuppier counties in PA and MI . Needless to say, I already found my dark horse for this region (Carcieri) but he's disappeared from the babbling class.

Huckabee represents change!

That's what most voters want - no more Washington bureaucrats, special interest pandering, ineptness, and corruption. Mike Huckabee brought real solutions to the  plight of Arkansans facing dismal ratings and court orders in the state education system, and  remedied the worst roads and infrastructure in the nation. He was the first, in the Republican debates, to mention  the depth of the economic downturn, the energy crisis, and the nation's pathetic infrastructure, AND he set forth realistic solutions. No one can wonder if he understands $$$ issues after seeing the success of his campaign on a shoestring and his working class roots. He clearly knows the value of a dollar and doesn't waste a penny of it. He is the epitomy of a NEW KIND of REPUBLICAN - one who sees life as a paramount principle in our democracy, and one who also sees the plight of the less fortunate and our duty to "help the least of these." He knows we must preserve the beauty of our environment ,and, for our national security and economic benefit, keep manufacturing jobs in America. He has not wavered on gun rights and was typically the best debater on the floor during the primaries. He represents change (not the kind Obama would bring with his Marxist's agenda), but change to set America back on the track our founders intended.

It starts with integrity

That's what most voters want - no more Washington bureaucrats, special interest pandering, ineptness, and corruption.

Enough with the hucksterism. Huckabee was no great shakes in the ethics and corruption dept as Ark. Gov.

"He is the epitomy of a NEW KIND of REPUBLICAN"

- Some of us fear a big-spending Republican as the new template.

 

 

 

Huck doesn't have blue collar appeal

I am an ethnic Catholic who has lived nearly my entire life in Western Pennsylvania, and I don't think a Southern Baptist minister will really be appealing to blue-collar (or any collar) Catholics.  While I think Huck himself is a generally upstanding guy, it wasn't that long ago that many of his brethern viewed our church as the whore of Babylon.  I think there is some discomfort with a Southern preacher, politican or not in the industrial midwest.

If it makes the Huck fans feel any better, I can't imagine Romney connecting with these voters either.

If not Romney or Huckabee...

Then who?